Examples Of Involuntary Manslaughter
Alan’s offence: Involuntary manslaughter - involuntary manslaughter is when a person commits an unlawful killing of a human being without intending to kill, involuntary manslaughter is often caused by recklessness or criminal negligence as you can see in this scenario Adam admits the only thing he wanted to do was to frighten off Pete he had no intent to kill anyone (Regina -v- Meeking [2012] EWCA Crim 641) In this case the appellant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter of her husband on the basis of the unlawful act was endangering road users contrary to the (Road Traffic Act 1998, s.22A (1)(b) .
A.R of homicide/causation
In this scenario it is clear that the killings were not voluntary his only intention was to scare off Pete as he said in police statement .Before the AR of either offence can be …show more content…
entirely fulfilled, it must be proved that Adam was the cause of the child’s. In the scenario he is the one that goes back saves the children the end. I think that he hasn’t no mens rea (Nedrick (1986). There needs to be a linking evidence that the child died from the fire, but the child didn’t the child died from transfusion of the wrong blood given to them by Dr James negligence from not checking. Causation though the but – for test can be applied here in Adams scenario because when trying to find out factual causation, the accused in this case Adam need not be the sole even the main reason of the harm of victims death but might be the main source of the victims death . As you can see it was fire and the throw out of the window that made the child end up in hospital, but not the main cause of the child’s death.( R v Dalloway (1847), in this case the authority for the point that the result must be produced by a culpable act. And in this case the culpable act was not holding the reins, which was not the main cause of death.
Defences to involuntary murder
1. Loss of control
Law
A partial defence to murder resulting in voluntary manslaughter. The tests as now defined by s54 and s55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009 need to be explained, both subjective and objective, i.e. the need for a loss of self-control, due to a qualifying trigger of either fear of serious violence or things said or done of a grave nature giving rise to a justifiable sense of wrong. The objective test consists of comparing D’s reaction to that of a reasonable person of reasonable self-restraint taking into account D’s sex, age and circumstances.
Applications to facts
Adam acted through loss of control like it says in the scenario he had a sudden burst of anger , which made him go to the house and set it alight this was the qualifying trigger for him to go and commit the crime he did as seen in the case R v Hatter [2013] WLR(D) 130 in this case they were a couple until the woman broke up with her partner , then one night through loss of control he went to her house and stabbed her in chest , he also ended stabbing himself but he survived.
Diminished Responsibility
Diminished Responsibility is a justification in criminal cases this often relies on the mental state of the person, whether inherited or caused by diseased or injury, that substantially weakens the persons mental responsibility for the persons acts or omissions this can be also called diminished responsibility. Facts
Adam’s condition would need to be proved by reference to psychiatric reports and be more than ordinary, temporary, reactive depression. In this scenario I does say Adam become clinically depressed.
Conclusion
If Adam is charged with involuntary manslaughter in respect of Pete’s child, neither defence will apply. It is unlikely that insanity would provide him with a defence since there is no suggestion in the question that he does not know what he is doing as he does go back and save the children. (As required by The McNaghten Rules 1843).
Betty’s liability for death
Betty is not liable because of liable of anything as there is no omission because it was her choice to call the police and she choose not to.
In the case (R v Pittwood) the court took a different approach to omission and said it was a crime to leave the gate open rather than to shut it as he which would have had to advocate that it was his opening of the gate which was criminalized, rather than his failure to shut it., this is once again seen as gross negligence like betty has done by not calling the police even though she had the choice to.
Dr j’s liability for death
Dr James is blatantly liable as through his negligence of not checking the type of blood he has given to the child and then resulting in the child later dying. If he had done the right thing in the first place the child would not have died and then he would not be liable. This is called gross negligence and in this scenario and because of what he did he will and is actions and omissions of his patient. (Adomako [1995]) The offence required a breach of duty which has given rise to a risk of death and which has caused death in a grossly negligent way by the child
dying.
June’s liability for death
The potential for murder was is also discussed in above scenario. She knew that the risk of them dying in that fire would have risen if she didn’t contact the fire brigade but then she prolonged the situation for a further 30 minutes. She has a duty to provide a quick service to get the fire brigade to the house as quick as possible in failing to do that she has taken and In having caused an unlawfully and intentionally killed the victim .
A.R of homicide/causation
In this scenario it is clear that the killings were not voluntary his only intention was to scare off Pete as he said in police statement .Before the AR of either offence can be …show more content…
entirely fulfilled, it must be proved that Adam was the cause of the child’s. In the scenario he is the one that goes back saves the children the end. I think that he hasn’t no mens rea (Nedrick (1986). There needs to be a linking evidence that the child died from the fire, but the child didn’t the child died from transfusion of the wrong blood given to them by Dr James negligence from not checking. Causation though the but – for test can be applied here in Adams scenario because when trying to find out factual causation, the accused in this case Adam need not be the sole even the main reason of the harm of victims death but might be the main source of the victims death . As you can see it was fire and the throw out of the window that made the child end up in hospital, but not the main cause of the child’s death.( R v Dalloway (1847), in this case the authority for the point that the result must be produced by a culpable act. And in this case the culpable act was not holding the reins, which was not the main cause of death.
Defences to involuntary murder
1. Loss of control
Law
A partial defence to murder resulting in voluntary manslaughter. The tests as now defined by s54 and s55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009 need to be explained, both subjective and objective, i.e. the need for a loss of self-control, due to a qualifying trigger of either fear of serious violence or things said or done of a grave nature giving rise to a justifiable sense of wrong. The objective test consists of comparing D’s reaction to that of a reasonable person of reasonable self-restraint taking into account D’s sex, age and circumstances.
Applications to facts
Adam acted through loss of control like it says in the scenario he had a sudden burst of anger , which made him go to the house and set it alight this was the qualifying trigger for him to go and commit the crime he did as seen in the case R v Hatter [2013] WLR(D) 130 in this case they were a couple until the woman broke up with her partner , then one night through loss of control he went to her house and stabbed her in chest , he also ended stabbing himself but he survived.
Diminished Responsibility
Diminished Responsibility is a justification in criminal cases this often relies on the mental state of the person, whether inherited or caused by diseased or injury, that substantially weakens the persons mental responsibility for the persons acts or omissions this can be also called diminished responsibility. Facts
Adam’s condition would need to be proved by reference to psychiatric reports and be more than ordinary, temporary, reactive depression. In this scenario I does say Adam become clinically depressed.
Conclusion
If Adam is charged with involuntary manslaughter in respect of Pete’s child, neither defence will apply. It is unlikely that insanity would provide him with a defence since there is no suggestion in the question that he does not know what he is doing as he does go back and save the children. (As required by The McNaghten Rules 1843).
Betty’s liability for death
Betty is not liable because of liable of anything as there is no omission because it was her choice to call the police and she choose not to.
In the case (R v Pittwood) the court took a different approach to omission and said it was a crime to leave the gate open rather than to shut it as he which would have had to advocate that it was his opening of the gate which was criminalized, rather than his failure to shut it., this is once again seen as gross negligence like betty has done by not calling the police even though she had the choice to.
Dr j’s liability for death
Dr James is blatantly liable as through his negligence of not checking the type of blood he has given to the child and then resulting in the child later dying. If he had done the right thing in the first place the child would not have died and then he would not be liable. This is called gross negligence and in this scenario and because of what he did he will and is actions and omissions of his patient. (Adomako [1995]) The offence required a breach of duty which has given rise to a risk of death and which has caused death in a grossly negligent way by the child
dying.
June’s liability for death
The potential for murder was is also discussed in above scenario. She knew that the risk of them dying in that fire would have risen if she didn’t contact the fire brigade but then she prolonged the situation for a further 30 minutes. She has a duty to provide a quick service to get the fire brigade to the house as quick as possible in failing to do that she has taken and In having caused an unlawfully and intentionally killed the victim .